Dallas Employment Trial Lawyer Cassidy Monska
Labor Day means different things to different people. For some, it is the unofficial end of summer, a day for barbecues, back to school sales, and one last trip to the lake. But the holiday has a history worth remembering, especially if you are someone who clocks in, punches out, and wonders whether the system is actually looking out for you.
Where Labor Day Came From
Dallas Employment Trial Lawyer Cassidy Monska
Scroll through social media long enough and you will find someone telling a stranger to “sue” over almost anything. A canceled flight. A rude cashier. A manager who raised their voice. Everyone in the comment section is suddenly a lawyer.
Here is the problem with that: the “sue them” culture makes it harder to spot the situations that actually do matter. People who have been through real discrimination or retaliation start to wonder if their situation is “serious enough,” and they wait, and they lose time they cannot get back. Employment claims often move on short deadlines, so the cost of waiting can be the whole case.
Dallas Employment Trial Lawyer Rob Wiley
On May 15, 2025 a conservative judge struck down federal guidance protecting gay and transgender employees from discrimination and harassment in the workplace. This is not normal or business as usual, this is a sledgehammer-style legal assault on our community. Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk’s opinion undoes decades of progress, declaring it legal to harass and bully workers who happen to be gay or trans. As a gay employment lawyer, I want to address what this means for us.
Employment discrimination against gay and trans people is real. We all have to have a job, and it’s all too common to have a co-worker or manager who resents having to work with someone who is gay or trans. That’s why this decision hits hard, it’s going to have a real impact on real life.
This article briefly highlights parts of Project 2025 (a conservative policy wish-list that the Trump administration seems likely to implement) that would have an impact on employment law and workers’ rights.
During his campaign, Donald Trump denied having anything to do with Project 2025, a conservative policy wish-list created by the Heritage Foundation. Project 2025 openly bills itself as a toolkit for the incoming administration. Tellingly, Trump has gone on to propose multiple nominees for his administration with close ties to the creation of the document. For instance, Trump intends to appoint Russ Vought as director of the Office of Management and Budget. Vought wrote one section of Project 2025 in which he espoused deep cuts to federal programs and agencies. One way or the other, it seems that the Trump administration is likely to try to implement at least some aspects of Project 2025. So what does it have to say about employment law?
Section 18 of Project 2025 addresses the “Department of Labor and related agencies.” Initially, when it comes to employment law Project 2025 says its goal is to help “reclaim the role of each American worker as the protagonist in his or her own life.” However, the proposals that it gives top billing to seem to have little connection to that.
On February 22, 2022, Governor Abbott penned a letter to the Texas Department of Family Protective Services (“DFPS”) in which he imposed a mandate on the State agency to investigate the parents of children who are undergoing any type of gender transitioning treatment. To call the tone and aim of this letter transphobic would be an understatement.
More importantly, the fact that Governor Abbott felt emboldened enough to send a transphobic order to the DFPS should act as a call to action. The February 22, 2022 letter is a prime example of how far we have come and yet how far we still have to go in the fight for equal rights. It is an example of all the protections we do not have because, in spite of Bostock County being decided by the Supreme Court, our state entities are not bound to follow those guidelines. Governor Abbott had the audacity to direct a state agency and licensed professionals to directly harm LGBTQIA+ children by deeming gender reassignment surgeries and treatment as child abuse. This is a clear sign that the Governor’s office is either indifferent or blind to the trials and tribulations that besiege an already marginalized minority.
In their 2019 National Survey on LGBTQ Youth Mental Health, The Trevor Project found that nearly 1 in 3 transgender and non-binary youth have attempted suicide. Governor Abbott’s directive allows transphobia to become a state policy in the eyes of all the citizens in Texas. This is not by accident; it is a conscious decision to place politics above children’s lives. The worst part is that we have civil rights laws that protect adult employees from discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation, but the civil rights protections do not extend more broadly. While this letter represents a transphobic attitude from the highest seat in the state government, all hope is not lost. The gubernatorial system that is set up in Texas disallows Governor Abbott from directly enforcing the directive through his office. Instead, he is reliant on district attorneys and state agencies to do so. Thus, we are able to put pressure on these individuals to protect trans children and other members of the LGBTQIA+ community.
This month the Supreme Court of the United States of America handed down one of the most long-awaited decisions of the term. On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court held that discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status constitutes discrimination “because of … sex” Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that protects employees and job applicants against discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, and religion. Before Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law, an employer could reject a job applicant or discriminate against an employee based on the applicant or employee’s race, color, national origin, religion, or sex. In fact, an employer could reject a job applicant or fire an employee or in some other way discriminate against that person because they were black or white, Muslim or Christian, a man or a woman, or German or Mexican, and it would be completely legal.
Discrimination at work is one of the hottest topics of employment law. There are a number of federal and state laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of specific protected characteristics. Almost all of these laws protect not only employees, but also applicants for employment and sometimes even former employees who are retaliated against after their employment ends.
Recently, a federal judge in Texas issued a ruling prohibiting Texas employers from discriminating against employees based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Although the plaintiff in that case was ultimately unsuccessful in establishing a case of Texas sexual orientation discrimination, the decision paved the way for gender-identity discrimination lawsuits.Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, certain qualifying employers are not allowed to discriminate or harass an employee based on that person’s sex. Discrimination covers all aspects of employment, including things such as termination, hiring, promotions, and benefits.
More and more advocates are beginning to speak out about gender identity and the related discrimination many of these individuals face in their professional and personal lives. Historically, Title VII has not protected these individuals from discrimination by their employers; however, recent cases have begun to change the tide in how these cases are handled.
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it’s illegal for covered employers to discriminate against a job applicant or employee on the basis of sex, among other protected characteristics. However, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation has not been explicitly prohibited. In a 2017 case, Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, the Seventh Circuit held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII. This ruling is different from the holdings of the nine other circuits.
The case arose when Hively, an openly lesbian adjunct professor, started teaching at a community college. She unsuccessfully applied for six full-time positions at the community college between 2009 and 2014. She believed that she was not getting hired full-time due to her sexual orientation and filed a charge to this effect with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
In court, the community college tried to get the case dismissed on the ground that sexual orientation was not a protected class under Title VII. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice. Hively appealed. A panel of the appellate court affirmed. It reasoned that discrimination based on sexual orientation was different from sex discrimination. The other circuits understood Title VII similarly.
In July 2015, a Wal-Mart employee sued her employer in federal court, alleging that the corporation had intentionally deprived her of spousal health insurance benefits because she and her spouse were of the same sex. She’d worked for the company for 15 years.
This lawsuit was filed a few weeks after same-sex marriage was legalized by the United States Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges. This holding had broad implications for many areas of law, including the issue of health insurance provided to the spouses of employees. Prior to this holding and an earlier ruling related to federal spousal benefits that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, employers tended to believe they were entitled not to recognize same-sex marriage. For three years before 2014, the company would not pay health insurance benefits to employees involved in same-sex marriages.
Wal-Mart started to provide benefits to same-sex couples in 2014. About 1,200 employees signed up to get these benefits. By then, the named plaintiff’s wife had developed ovarian cancer and had incurred $150,000 in out-of-pocket expenses.
Dallas Employment Lawyer Blog